MBrady:tommyl66: Another responsible gun owner in the land of the free and the home of the Braves...

show me ONE gun shooting where the shooter was a legal gun owner who was level headed, sane, and was legally able to own them.

You're right, usually it is some wahoo that has completely gone off the reservation, sporting a tomahawk haircut and toting around a chopped-off shotgun that makes headlines. That was an error on me, a good catch by you.

willfullyobscure:MBrady: tommyl66: Another responsible gun owner in the land of the free and the home of the Braves...

show me ONE gun shooting where the shooter was a legal gun owner who was level headed, sane, and was legally able to own them.

Show me ONE car accident where both drivers were sober, legally licensed, insured and didn't make any mistakes or take any risks.

Well, this is Georgia, so I am sure there are plenty of instances of multiple-car accidents after someone hits a deer, or a fallen limb from a tree, etc. Or an at-fault pedestrian or bicyclist starts an accident, etc.

Bit'O'Gristle:dittybopper: Babwa Wawa: KingKauff: When the first mass shooting in a bar or church happens, THEN you can spew the "South-hate"

But I thought the whole point of that law is to prevent mass shootings.

Armed society being polite society and all that sh*t.

I'm willing to bet that:

1. It's illegal to possess a firearm in that area of the airport, and/or2. It's against FedEx rules to be armed on the job.

So in this case, it's really about an unarmed pocket of society being vulnerable.

In fact, if you go back and look at the vast majority of mass shootings, they usually tend to happen where guns aren't allowed: Schools, government buildings, and businesses where carrying is forbidden, and jurisdictions where carrying is often quite restricted or banned completely*.

But then, you *KNEW* that already, didn't you?

*The last "no-issue" state in the US was Illinois. They are now "Shall-Issue".

/i could not agree more. Mass shootings are generally at "soft targets" where most if not all the victims aren't capable of defending themselves against a firearm wielding wack job. That is why the shooters pick them. You wouldn't walk into a bank were all the tellers / public is armed and try to rob it. You would be riddled in seconds. They go for soft targets to kill many people before killing themselves. They are cowards, and take the cowardly way out by killing innocent defenseless victims.

gnosis301:jehovahs witness protection: Funny how people yap about the south while ignoring all the shootings in the utopia known as Chicago.

Get off that cross you nailed yourself to.

/Well if we could figure out how to get gang members to stop spraying rounds into innocent victims while throwing moranic gang signs we would have that problem licked now wouldn't we? You can't fix stupid, and darwin generally assures us that he will continue to weed out genetically flawed citizens.

Boo_Guy:Because the mail never stops. It just keeps coming and coming and coming. There's never a letup, It's relentless. Every day it piles up more and more, but the more you get out, the more it keeps coming. And then the bar code reader breaks. And then it's Publisher's Clearinghouse day...[i.ytimg.com image 480x360]

A responsible gun owner would not have done this. That's how you can tell the difference.

No true Scotsman alert -- if the only way we can tell responsible gun owners from the irresponsible is by hindsight after a mass shooting, we're doing something genuinely wrong.

Of course, it's an NTS with a fairly rational basis, so I'll buy it. This is a case example of why we need to vet prospective gun owners, or have in place regulation that ensures guns end up in -- and stay in -- the hands of only responsible owners.

Bit'O'Gristle:gnosis301: jehovahs witness protection: Funny how people yap about the south while ignoring all the shootings in the utopia known as Chicago.

Get off that cross you nailed yourself to.

/Well if we could figure out how to get gang members cops to stop spraying rounds into innocent victims we would have that problem licked now wouldn't we? You can't fix stupid, and darwin generally assures us that he will continue to weed out genetically flawed citizens.

HotWingConspiracy:Bit'O'Gristle: dittybopper: Babwa Wawa: KingKauff: When the first mass shooting in a bar or church happens, THEN you can spew the "South-hate"

But I thought the whole point of that law is to prevent mass shootings.

Armed society being polite society and all that sh*t.

I'm willing to bet that:

1. It's illegal to possess a firearm in that area of the airport, and/or2. It's against FedEx rules to be armed on the job.

So in this case, it's really about an unarmed pocket of society being vulnerable.

In fact, if you go back and look at the vast majority of mass shootings, they usually tend to happen where guns aren't allowed: Schools, government buildings, and businesses where carrying is forbidden, and jurisdictions where carrying is often quite restricted or banned completely*.

But then, you *KNEW* that already, didn't you?

*The last "no-issue" state in the US was Illinois. They are now "Shall-Issue".

/i could not agree more. Mass shootings are generally at "soft targets" where most if not all the victims aren't capable of defending themselves against a firearm wielding wack job. That is why the shooters pick them. You wouldn't walk into a bank were all the tellers / public is armed and try to rob it. You would be riddled in seconds. They go for soft targets to kill many people before killing themselves. They are cowards, and take the cowardly way out by killing innocent defenseless victims.

Boo_Guy:MBrady: tommyl66: Another responsible gun owner in the land of the free and the home of the Braves...

show me ONE gun shooting where the shooter was a legal gun owner who was level headed, sane, and was legally able to own them.

Wasn't that red haired nut who shot up the movie theater a legal owner of the guns he used? I'm not sure but I thought he was.

Since when do they check to see if you're level headed and sane when you buy a gun?Isn't that part of the problem?

Yes, you can't tell if someone is batshiat crazy when they want to buy a gun, they make a little mark next to "no" when they fill out the application for their FOID under "have you ever been or are now being treated for mental illness within the last X amount of years". Duh, like they are going to check "yes, I'm a total wack job who wants to see blood...and brains, and veins in my teeth". This is the flaw. Unless there is a record of this person being committed, or having a felony, they are good to go.

HotWingConspiracy:MBrady: HotWingConspiracy: MBrady: tommyl66: Another responsible gun owner in the land of the free and the home of the Braves...

show me ONE gun shooting where the shooter was a legal gun owner who was level headed, sane, and was legally able to own them.

So you advocate for mental health screenings prior to being allowed to own firearms, right?

If it'll keep the wackos from getting a legal gun, sure.

What if they're sane today and crazy tomorrow?

Then again we have laws that are supposed to keep criminals from getting guns, and that works so well, right?

The laws are a joke and intentionally watered down by politicians that must show fealty to gun groups to attain wealth and political power.

Here is my proposal. It lets people have guns, keeps the government from intruding on your personal life, and adds some accountability to the mix.

If you want a gun, you need 2 people to vouch for you, that you are a responsible person, stable, and they believe you are trustworthy enough to have a gun. It could be any 2 people who are not immediate family.

Then you get your gun(s).

However, if you do something irresponsible with them, like lose them, commit a crime, accidently put a bullet through the neighbors house, or gun down your local fedex facility, the people who vouched for you face a penalty. Figure a few thousand dollar fine or a few weekends in the clink. Enough to encourage them to keep tabs on you and raise the horn if you start going off the reservation, but not so severe that nobody would ever consider risking vouching for someone else.

Now, at any point during your gun ownership, one of the people vouching for you can go to the cops and say, "hey, i don't really trust this guy anymore\am not friends with him anymore\whatever" the cops then contact the other person, make sure that he is still cool with you having them, and then give you a fixed amount of time to replace that person. If you can't find someone to vouch for you in say, 2 weeks, the cops get to sit on your stash until you do.

If both people decide they no longer want to vouch for you, the cops get to sit on your stash until you find 2 new people, and are cleared by a shrink.

The Crepes of Wrath:Alpha Sierra Foxtrot: Really? We're going to start the South-hate this early in the morning?

Well, Georgia did just pass their "guns everywhere" law.

If two guys pulled guns on each other over a parking dispute and wasted a half dozen random people in their shoot out that may be relevant. Is there anything in particular about their laws that make this any more legal?

Really? We're going to start the South-hate this early in the morning?

I don't know about South-hate, but Georgia-hate is something that many can agree on. I was born there and I can't stand the place. Especially driving through. I don't know why but I absolutely hate driving through Georgia. It makes me nervous, tired, and generally disagreeable whenever I have to go through there.

I don't get the whole shooting spree thing lately. I'm not even sure what the point of it is. It's just sad. My sympathy goes out to the families affected.

1. It's illegal to possess a firearm in that area of the airport, and/or2. It's against FedEx rules to be armed on the job.

So in this case, it's really about an unarmed pocket of society being vulnerable.

In fact, if you go back and look at the vast majority of mass shootings, they usually tend to happen where guns aren't allowed: Schools, government buildings, and businesses where carrying is forbidden, and jurisdictions where carrying is often quite restricted or banned completely*.

But don't blame the nut with the gun. Blame the guy who went to work to feed his family assuming no gun owner would rampage through his workplace shooting everyone he sees.

rebelyell2006:willfullyobscure: MBrady: tommyl66: Another responsible gun owner in the land of the free and the home of the Braves...

show me ONE gun shooting where the shooter was a legal gun owner who was level headed, sane, and was legally able to own them.

Show me ONE car accident where both drivers were sober, legally licensed, insured and didn't make any mistakes or take any risks.

Well, this is Georgia, so I am sure there are plenty of instances of multiple-car accidents after someone hits a deer, or a fallen limb from a tree, etc. Or an at-fault pedestrian or bicyclist starts an accident, etc.

Bit'O'Gristle:dittybopper: Babwa Wawa: KingKauff: When the first mass shooting in a bar or church happens, THEN you can spew the "South-hate"

But I thought the whole point of that law is to prevent mass shootings.

Armed society being polite society and all that sh*t.

I'm willing to bet that:

1. It's illegal to possess a firearm in that area of the airport, and/or2. It's against FedEx rules to be armed on the job.

So in this case, it's really about an unarmed pocket of society being vulnerable.

In fact, if you go back and look at the vast majority of mass shootings, they usually tend to happen where guns aren't allowed: Schools, government buildings, and businesses where carrying is forbidden, and jurisdictions where carrying is often quite restricted or banned completely*.

But then, you *KNEW* that already, didn't you?

*The last "no-issue" state in the US was Illinois. They are now "Shall-Issue".

/i could not agree more. Mass shootings are generally at "soft targets" where most if not all the victims aren't capable of defending themselves against a firearm wielding wack job. That is why the shooters pick them. You wouldn't walk into a bank were all the tellers / public is armed and try to rob it. You would be riddled in seconds. They go for soft targets to kill many people before killing themselves. They are cowards, and take the cowardly way out by killing innocent defenseless victims.

-Cobb County is part of Metro Atlanta and is the fourth most populous county in the state. It's home to Six Flags, the site of the future Atlanta Braves stadium, Dobbins AFB and it's where the F-22 is built-the link is strangely from a Huntsville, AL station-McCollum Field is a muni. There are no other int'l airports within 150 miles of ATL.

Bit'O'Gristle:upndn: What qualifies as a mass shooting? How many people must be shot or is it how many shots are fired? Do people have to die? Hell, it took me half my life to figure out the difference between "a couple" and "a few". I always thought "a mass" is more than "a couple" or "a few" but in regards to shootings, I'm not so sure.

/I need my coffee

/I have always been in the understanding that anything above 4 or five is considered "mass". As far as i know, there is no fixed number, but generally, i have seen 4 or 5 to be the line.

To further elaborate on this, two people shot is company, and three shootings is a crowd.

Wat, no kill shots? Fed Ex can't deliver properly. Now if DHL starts dropping bombs it will be a time for concern. As I understand it, if you're crossing the Sahara with a satellite phone and a platinum american express car but dumb enough to have not brought supplies along, you can order a case of agua fina from Amaon and they'll drop ship it by parachute within 300 feet of your GPS coordinate expediently. Those would be the guys to worry about.

LineNoise:HotWingConspiracy: MBrady: HotWingConspiracy: MBrady: tommyl66: Another responsible gun owner in the land of the free and the home of the Braves...

show me ONE gun shooting where the shooter was a legal gun owner who was level headed, sane, and was legally able to own them.

So you advocate for mental health screenings prior to being allowed to own firearms, right?

If it'll keep the wackos from getting a legal gun, sure.

What if they're sane today and crazy tomorrow?

Then again we have laws that are supposed to keep criminals from getting guns, and that works so well, right?

The laws are a joke and intentionally watered down by politicians that must show fealty to gun groups to attain wealth and political power.

Here is my proposal. It lets people have guns, keeps the government from intruding on your personal life, and adds some accountability to the mix.

If you want a gun, you need 2 people to vouch for you, that you are a responsible person, stable, and they believe you are trustworthy enough to have a gun. It could be any 2 people who are not immediate family.

Then you get your gun(s).

However, if you do something irresponsible with them, like lose them, commit a crime, accidently put a bullet through the neighbors house, or gun down your local fedex facility, the people who vouched for you face a penalty. Figure a few thousand dollar fine or a few weekends in the clink. Enough to encourage them to keep tabs on you and raise the horn if you start going off the reservation, but not so severe that nobody would ever consider risking vouching for someone else.

Now, at any point during your gun ownership, one of the people vouching for you can go to the cops and say, "hey, i don't really trust this guy anymore\am not friends with him anymore\whatever" the cops then contact the other person, make sure that he is still cool with you having them, and then give you a fixed amount of time to replace that person. If you can't find someone to vouch for you in say, 2 weeks, the cops get to sit on your stash until you do.

If both people decide they no longer want to vouch for you, the cops get to sit on your stash until you find 2 new people, and are cleared by a shrink.